Titlebook: Hamlet after Deconstruction; Aneta Mancewicz Book 2022 The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springe

饰带

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-18041-7he pervasiveness of Shakespeare’s tragedy in Western culture that makes the process of deconstructive adaptation possible. At the same time, the deconstructive afterlife of . offers insights into broad tendencies in post-war European history and theatrical experimentation.

严厉批评

Book 2022alyses offered in this book show how adaptations of .Hamlet. capture crucial anxieties and concerns of post-war Europe, such as political disillusionment, postmodern scepticism, and feminist resistance, revealing exciting connections between European traditions..

使长胖

领袖气质

The Political Economy of Agricultural Booms. Such features are at odds with the traditional model of adaptation, which focuses on expanding and explaining the source. Inspired by Derrida’s deconstruction, this chapter introduces a new interpretative paradigm. Central to this paradigm is the idea that an act of adaptation consists in foregrou

Glycogen

FAST

The Political Economy of Asian Regionalismers to the status of main protagonists only to show them vainly striving to make sense of fragmentary and metatheatrical scenes from .. At the heart of Stoppard’s supplement is the inclusion of contradictory elements. He applies deconstruction as a dialectical method in that he assembles contrasting

灿烂

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-33451-2e hand, the adaptation introduces a woman-focused approach to Shakespeare’s tragedy in that it places Ophelia and her world at the centre. On the other hand, it resists temptation to use Ophelia’s story as a way of completing and clarifying the source plot. Mitchell’s stage interpretation of . is de

jaundiced

VICT

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-27929-6in possible. In deconstructive adaptations, the production of differences is likely to result in several options emerging from creative play. What I argue here is that in such adaptations, the difference is achieved in the process of ., in which images and scenarios are produced in abundance and wit

不成比例

fference takes the form of . understood as an open-ended process. In Heiner Müller’s ., this process is uniquely structured as machine-like production of meaning. Müller’s concept of a deconstructive meaning-making machine works in a symmetrical opposition to Giorgio Agamben’s anthropological machin